Marley Erectors, Inc. v. Rice

• Decision Date: 15 January 1993
• Citation: 620 So.2d 31
• Parties: MARLEY ERECTORS, INC. v. Barbara RICE. 2910443.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Page 31

620 So.2d 31

MARLEY ERECTORS, INC. v. Barbara RICE.

2910443.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 15, 1993.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1993.

Certiorari Denied April 30, 1993

Alabama Supreme Court 1920819.

John J. Coleman III and Victoria J. Franklin-Sisson of Balch & Bingham, Birmingham, for appellant.

Charles F. Carr and Thomas L. Oliver II of Rives & Peterson, Birmingham, for appellee.

THIGPEN, Judge.

This is a workmen's compensation case.

Barbara Rice, an employee of Marley Erectors, Inc. (Marley), filed suit in November 1987, seeking workmen's compensation benefits, alleging that she was injured in June 1987, when a piece of concrete struck the hard hat which she was wearing. The trial court found that Rice suffered a work-related accident and suffered a "severe psychological disability," and it awarded compensation for a 15% permanent partial disability.

Marley appealed, contending, inter alia, that the trial court failed to find that Rice had suffered a loss of earning capacity. Workmen's compensation cannot be awarded without a finding of a loss of ability to earn. Alabama Power Co. v. Daniel, 545 So.2d 779 (Ala.Civ.App.1989). This court reversed and remanded the cause for a determination regarding whether Rice had suffered a loss of earning ability. Marley Erectors, Inc. v. Rice, 560 So.2d 1083 (Ala.Civ.App.1990). On remand, the trial court amended its order incorporating its original order and specifically finding that Rice had suffered a 15% loss of earning ability.

Marley again appealed, and this court reversed the trial court's finding that Rice had suffered a 15% loss of earning ability. Marley Erectors, Inc. v. Rice, 585 So.2d 1379 (Ala.Civ.App.1991). This court found that Rice's earnings were the same after the injury as before, and that she had failed to rebut the presumption that she suffered no loss of earning capacity. See Lankford v. International Paper Co., 454 So.2d 988 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). On that remand, the trial court found that Rice suffered no loss of earning capacity, but it ordered Marley to pay Rice's past and future medical expenses. These expenses consisted primarily of charges for psychological treatment of Rice's depression. Marley appeals.

Marley contends on appeal 1) that the workmen's compensation laws do not allow Rice to recover for an accident that does not cause physical injury; 2) that an employee who has no permanent disability may not recover future medical expenses; 3) that the trial court wrongly ordered Marley to pay Rice's past medical and psychological expenses; and 4) that Rice has not established sufficient medical causation between the accident and her depression.

At the outset, we note the two-step standard of review in workmen's compensation cases. Initially, this court must look to see whether there is any legal evidence to support the trial court's findings. If we find that such evidence exists, we must then determine whether any reasonable view of that evidence supports the trial court's judgment. Ex parte Eastwood Foods, Inc., 575 So.2d 91 (Ala.1991).

Marley first contends that Rice cannot recover benefits for mental impairment when the trial court has found no physical injury, citing J.C. Penney Co. v. Pigg, 544 So.2d 169 (Ala.Civ.App.1989), to support its position. Compensation for mental injury is recoverable when the claimant can prove that it was caused by physical trauma or injury. Magouirk v. United Parcel Service, 496 So.2d 55 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). In this case, the trial court found that Rice "did suffer injuries as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment"; therefore, Pigg, supra, is inapplicable. This finding was supported by the testimony and record evidence of Drs. Chan and Brand.

Marley next contends that Rice's injury was caused by a co-worker's harassment, and that it is therefore non-compensable. At the time of Rice's injury, Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-1(9), stated in pertinent part:

"['Injury' as used in this Act]

"[this definition of work-related injury] shall not include any injury caused by the act of a third person or fellow employee intended to injure the employee because of reasons personal to him and not directed against him as an employee or because of his employment ..."

Rice had conjectured to her physician that a co-worker whom she refused to date might have deliberately dropped the concrete on her head. Marley argues that Rice's hypothesis released it from liability pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-1(9). The trial court apparently considered this possibility and concluded that if the act of dropping the cement was not accidental, then Rice was, at most, a non-participating victim of co-employees' horseplay. See McKnight v. Consolidated Concrete Co., 279 Ala. 430, 186 So.2d 144 (1966). Regardless, evidence exists to support that conclusion and a reasonable view of that evidence supports the trial court's judgment. Eastwood, supra.

Marley next contends that future medical expenses cannot be awarded without a finding of permanent disability, and that there is no evidence that Rice's past medical expenses were reasonable and necessary. Marley's argument is erroneous in that it apparently assumes that the trial court determined that Rice did not suffer a work-related injury. The trial court expressly found that Rice suffered a work-related injury; however, she did not suffer a loss of earning capacity. See Marley Erectors, Inc. v. Rice, 585 So.2d 1379 (Ala.Civ.App.1991). Once the trial court determined that Rice suffered a work-related injury, she was automatically entitled to future medical benefits which are related to the injury, when such expenses are "reasonable" and "necessary" and are obtained with the authorization of the employer. Jones v. Pickens County Health Care,...